Just Take Away Their Guns

819 Words4 Pages
In James Q. Wilson’s New York Times article, “Just Take Away Their Guns,” Wilson sufficiently reasons how the elimination of illegal guns on the streets should be the central focus in determining the limits regarding American gun control regulations which are frequently debated in our modern world. While Wilson makes an effective argument, at times, he racially profiles which is a definite form of deceptive reasoning; in addition, many of Wilson’s arguments lack the elaboration he needs to avoid making hasty assertions. Wilson argues in his essay that not allowing people to buy guns will have no effect on the illegal use of guns, which in essence, is the sole reasoning for wanting to eliminate guns in the first place. He makes the claim…show more content…
However, when making this point, Wilson alludes to the idea of the effectiveness of racial profiling. When making this claim on the effectiveness of employing more frequent, random searches, Wilson concedes that even though, “innocent people will be stopped,” and, “young black and Hispanic men will probably be stopped more than older white Anglo males and women of any race,” these searches are the only means by which we can eliminate illegal guns on the streets. Instead of analyzing the likely effects of this racial profiling on racial relations, Wilson uses circular reasoning to come to a conclusion that he has already previously made without exploring other options. “If we are serious about reducing drive-by shootings, fatal gang-wars and lethal quarrels in public places,” Wilson concludes that the only way is through these random searches regardless of whether or not racial profiling comes into play. By reasoning in such a manner, Wilson loses credibility and his argument suffers for this. This specific point brings to mind more questions that Wilson lacks the answers to. In this argument that police should be taught to be able to spot people that look like they are carrying guns, Wilson does not elaborate on how this would be possible. This jump in his reasoning leaves his argument a little patchy in the sense that it is hard to buy into a plan that has no
Open Document